The recent government shutdown reignited a common Congressional tactic: attacking the federal workforce. Federal employees become convenient punching bags for legislators trying to take out their political, policy and personal frustrations. When a problem arises: blame a bureaucrat. When you don’t like a policy: demonize an agency. When you oppose a proposal: scare the public about federal power. When a legitimate transgression occurs within an agency: generalize the problem to every federal worker.

The attacks are hackneyed, almost always the product of hyperbole, and can have serious effects on the efficiency, effectiveness and morale or hardworking federal employees. Here are five common and unnecessary ways the workforce comes under attack.

1. Pay Freezes

With the exception of a last minute concession during the recent budget agreement, federal workers have faced pay freezes for the past several years. “Pay freeze” is a mild enough term that departs from economic reality. As costs rise, federal workers face an effective pay cut. Congress and the President argue in tough economic times, pay raises are a luxury that America cannot afford. However, the freeze has economic consequences for workers. Is the policy harmless? Hardly. It creates a problematic incentive structure where the most talented in the federal workforce—those who have the most professional appeal in the private sector—may retire or exit looking for better opportunity, leaving the bureaucracy either short staffed or with a deficit of talent.

2. Uncertainty

For generations, a government job meant stability. Over the past few years, that has changed. Sequestration-induced furloughs, looming government shutdowns, actual government shutdowns, and a Congress seemingly addicted to the manufacture of fiscal crises generate profound uncertainty. Government workers faced a summer in which they were unsure how many unpaid furlough days they would face. Many workers spent 16 days barred from their offices, unsure if they would be paid. As bills piled up, an end date to the shutdown was unclear, and their financial situation became murky, Congress largely turned a blind eye to the serious plight facing the workforce.

3. Federal Benefits

During the government shutdown, some Republicans in Congress used federal employee benefits as ransom. I have written on Brookings’ FixGov blog about the effort spearheaded by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) that sought to force Congressional staff from their current health care plans and to remove the employer contribution for their premiums. (Other proposal sought the same for the executive branch.) The result would have been an effective pay cut for those affected employees and additional economic hardship for workers already facing a period of financial uncertainty. Many argue that the Vitter Amendment—as it came to be called—and other such proposals could have led to brain drain in the workforce, whereby the most talented and experienced staff exited the public sector for private sector opportunity.

4. Budget Cuts (and Other Theatrics)

For the past few years, and particularly over the past 10 months, public budgeting has been a struggle. Federal agencies have faced periods of short-term budgeting, budget freezes, and now, the budget cuts from sequestration. Each poses serious challenges. First, short-term budgeting, brought on by reliance on continuing resolutions for periods of only months, leaves federal managers facing serious uncertainty about their future funding. When managers are unsure about the level of funding they will have, it presents profound challenges for project planning, organization, and overall management. Budgetary foresight carries with it critical, cost-reducing efficiencies.

Similarly, budget freezes and (sequestration) cuts pose other challenges. From year to year, demands on federal agencies often grow—as does the cost of doing business. With cuts and freezes, federal agencies are asked to do more with less. Their ability to meet demands is severely limited. It should be noted, those demands come in part from Congress and the President, but they also come from citizens who rely every day on their government to deliver critical services.

5. Rhetorical Attacks

Speeches condemning federal workers are commonplace on the floors of the House and Senate, on campaign trails, and in TV advertisements. Federal workers are consistently demonized for doing their job—often the job Congress authorizes. Whether attacks are as blunt as calling federal workers lazy, overpaid, inefficient, nameless and faceless, unaccountable or are more subtle, they sting. Federal worker morale takes a hit, and the attacks generate in society a harshly negative view of the bureaucrat. Members of Congress, especially Republican members, are among the most frequent critics of the federal workforce. One example is a March 2011 hearing from the Federal Workforce Subcommittee of House Oversight. It was titled, “Are Federal Workers Underpaid?” However, the tone of the hearing asked if federal workers are overpaid. That rhetoric is not reserved for the titles of committee hearings. A few pointed examples from the Congressional Record:

Bureaucrats Lack Expertise
“We can’t allow Federal bureaucrats, many of who have never set foot on a farm to tell Iowa farm families how they can run their operation.” Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), July 24, 2012.

Bureaucrats Hurting the Economy
“This country could be booming right now, but it is being held back by Federal bureaucrats who have little or no business experience…” Rep. John J. Duncan (R-TN) July 13, 2011.

Bureaucrats as Job Killers
“Our job creators are under attack by Federal bureaucrats, who are bringing out all these regulations every single day to kill jobs.” Rep. Steve Scalise, March 2, 2011.

The result of this is a type of hostile work environment, making federal work less appealing. Attacking the bureaucrats may deflect blame from the legislature, win votes in elections, and raise campaign funds; it also affects worker morale, which can have serious consequences for efficiency and effectiveness.

When problems, inefficiencies, and breakdowns happen within government, people look at which political appointee or bureaucrat or contractor they can blame or they heap blame on the whole bureaucracy. Rarely do people consider how behaviors in Congress affect both federal workers and their ability to do their jobs. Government workers are not perfect nor above reproach. However, the solution to problems in the workforce or within agencies is not to assume every worker is problematic, challenge every bureaucrat’s integrity, or construct barriers to efficiency. The solution is to foster a workplace that promotes effectiveness and offers the resources that allow managers to achieve efficiency. Stopping the demonization of the federal workforce would be a good start.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or
otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec.com does not monitor comments posted to this site (and
has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems
to be in violation of this rule.

Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.